The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Brenda]

.

What I am unsure of from the article is if Thomas Cutbush himself was a police officer. His uncle was....but the Wiki article describes the uncle as "...fellow police officer...." so I am unsure.

Time to brush up on AP's writings. It's been years since I read through all this.

[Fisherman]

It is not that easy. Sorry.

Regards Pierre

What I am unsure of from the article is if Thomas Cutbush himself was a police officer. His uncle was....but the Wiki article describes the uncle as "...fellow police officer...." so I am unsure.

Time to brush up on AP's writings. It's been years since I read through all this.

Thomas was not a policeman. He was knit to the tea trade, if memory serves.

[Wickerman]

But the truth is that the cuts looks like chevrons. Everyone can see that. So this is a much more simple hypothesis.

Truth?

Any close up of the face effectively dismisses the belief that those slices look anything like chevrons.

[Elamarna]

Pierre,
going to answer what you asked, but got a few other question for you.

First, just want to be clear when you said:

"Yes, I did. But I have changed my mind. The reason is that I don´t want to carry this alone anymore."

Did you mean that you had changed your mind about the suspect, because that is how it reads and would make nonsense of your theory. Alternatively do you mean that you actually lied to us? are you saying he could be a police officer of any rank, when you specifically said not a Scotland Yard official.

I do remember you saying that you would always answer truthfully, unless you could not answer.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS, AND I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF LYING, BUT THAT IS ONE INTERPRETATION OF YOU POST.
IF YOU HAVE INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD US, WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE YOU NOW?

I am assuming that you can give a reasonable answer to that one.

now I am taking a response you gave to Pcdunn:

"And I have other data sources that identifies him. The testimony of Lechmere has had nothing to do with that during the time of my research. I found Lechmere´s testimony late in the research process and the theory was finished. "

I have underlined the part which is of interest, that reads that your research is over does it not??

Surely that means you have no reason not to tell us the ID.


"The confession give things that only this police official could have known"

Such as? it must be possible to give something without giving away the ID.
In reality there are few things only a killer would know, that were not in the public domain. but you say only this officer?

if it is so concrete as only one could know the details, you have a positive result, you could post the ID.

And again:
"Steve, at this moment I can only refer to sources which do not give his ID. ."

yet in your post to Pcdunn you speak of your research in the past tense, when you say:
" I found Lechmere´s testimony late in the research process and the theory was finished. " you actually say the theory is finished.

Or am I misunderstanding you?



Now to answer the question you asked me.

If he was a senior high ranking officer they may have hushed the case up, due to the scandal,but still feel the killer would have been locked away, it was easy to lock people in an asylum in those days. there are examples of persons with connections to The Royal Family where this happened

If low rank, have no doubt they would have had the man incarcerated.

I am confused of course because i am not sure what you meant by saying
" But I have changed my mind" as discussed at the start of my post.



I have several other questions,

You have made it clear I think that you believe the killer did the writing on the wall. what do you think he is saying?

On the night of the bucks row murder, there are i believe 3 officers with excuses for being there plus mizen arriving later, surely you must be suggesting one of them? or is it someone else?

Finally, going back to the "V's" on the cheek.

From what i can see, I may be wrong, the only police officers who could have seen your suggestion as being real would have been those involved with the rank of sergeant. Either someone not promoted to or from. even then it is an incredible stretch of reality to think that those investigating would understand this.

have a good Christmas day

[Whitechapel]

Oooh Pierre this is a lovely Christmas prezzie, you have been asked for something concrete and you have produced the goods. A serving policeman, why not ? How delicious ? This case has never been solved so you can't absolutely say he did but then again others can't say absolutely that he didn't. You are in the realms of competing theories where my guess is good as yours.

On the chevrons, whatever the technique the result was a V shape, intentional or not. Whether you argue for and against, it's not a deal breaker on its own, but if it's part of your argument then it's your job to push it as far as you can as much as others who will try and knock it down.

On the Mizen scam, a good defence lawyer could get you off as it can be argued no one would want to be the first on scene at a murder precisely because of the implications Fisherman has drawn, that Lechmere/Cross did it. So if Lechmere was evasive, that is understandable. However I'm not absolutely convinced that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, it's a good theory though.

I hope you guys can respect each others theories though as debate moves the subject forward and it is Christmas and those poor women deserve to be remembered with as much respect as possible.

[Whitechapel]

Oooh Pierre this is a lovely Christmas prezzie, you have been asked for something concrete and you have produced the goods. A serving policeman, why not ? How delicious ? This case has never been solved so you can't absolutely say he did but then again others can't say absolutely that he didn't. You are in the realms of competing theories where my guess is good as yours.

On the chevrons, whatever the technique the result was a V shape, intentional or not. Whether you argue for and against, it's not a deal breaker on its own, but if it's part of your argument then it's your job to push it as far as you can as much as others who will try and knock it down.

On the Mizen scam, a good defence lawyer could get you off as it can be argued no one would want to be the first on scene at a murder precisely because of the implications Fisherman has drawn, that Lechmere/Cross did it. So if Lechmere was evasive, that is understandable. However I'm not absolutely convinced that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, it's a good theory though.

I hope you guys can respect each others theories though as debate moves the subject forward and it is Christmas and those poor women deserve to be remembered with as much respect as possible.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I dunno, GUT, I am rather looking forward to see Pierre and Fisherman (or poster-Lechmere) take on each other's theories in what could be highly entertaining for the rest of us. Shall we set up a betting pool on who wins?

"A fight between two bald men over a comb"

(Jorge Luis Borges)

[Pcdunn]

"A fight between two bald men over a comb"

(Jorge Luis Borges)

Right, or as they say out West, "that cowboy is all hat and no cattle"!

[Pierre]

I could, specifically, comment on your theory from one aspect, of course - you suggest that there was another man in Bucks Row WITH Charles Lechmere, who was the actual killer.

My answer to that particular passus is that the existance of this suspect is uncorroborated in the sources.

No it isn´t. Lechmere said to Mizen there was a policeman waiting for him, according to Mizen.


He is therefore an invention only, as opposed to an established fact.

So he must be an invention of Lechmere´s for you, or your Mizen scam doesn´t work, does it.

In that respect, he joins all the other suspects apart from Charles Lechmere who have been suggested as alternative killers of Polly Nichols - they are all phantasy figures in this respect.

I know that you have chosen to think that Lechmere lied about seeing a policeman in Buck´s Row. And when he testified he lied again. Lechmere is considered a "liar". Otherwise the scam doesn´t work.

Most of them are established figures from history, but their respective presences in Bucks Row are imaginary only.

But Lechmere told Mizen there was a policeman waiting for him. Mizen was sworn.

Proposing a man who is confirmed as having been in place (or, as the police normally describes it: having had opportunity) is automatically more viable when looking for suspects.

Mizen confirmed that Lechmere did tell him there was a policeman waiting for Mizen. So he was in place - or your scam is right. Which one is it?

In any other world, that goes without saying, but on Planet Ripper, it is not only questioned but actually shunned..!

Here, if we can show that at the approximate time when person A was killed, person B was present, the outcome is that persons C-Z are just as worthy suspects, if not even more worthy.

No. Mizen did not testify that Lechmere told him that person C-Z was waiying for him in Bucks Row. He said specifically that it was a "policeman".

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Cutbush. It was Cutbush that AP wrote of.

Is your suspect Cutbush, Pierre, or anyone associated with Cutbush?

No Brenda. I don´t know anything about Cutbush.

Interesting. I wonder why this AP Wolf thought it was a policeman. I shall look into it if I find it.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

a Wiki quickie:

Thomas Hayne Cutbush (1865–1903) was a medical student sent to Lambeth Infirmary in 1891 suffering delusions thought to have been caused by syphilis.[62] After stabbing a woman in the backside and attempting to stab a second he was pronounced insane and committed to Broadmoor Hospital in 1891, where he remained until his death in 1903.[63] The Sun newspaper suggested in a series of articles in 1894 that Cutbush was the Ripper. There is no evidence that police took the idea seriously, and Melville Macnaghten's memorandum naming the three police suspects Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog was written to refute the idea that Cutbush was the Ripper.[64] Cutbush was the suspect advanced in the 1993 book Jack the Myth by A. P. Wolf, who suggested that Macnaghten wrote his memo to protect Cutbush's uncle who was a fellow police officer,[65] and another recent writer, Peter Hodgson, considers that Cutbush is the most likely candidate.[66]

OK, thanks.

Regards Pierre

[Brenda]

,

Pierre,
I was misremembering AP's theory. Thomas Cutbush was a nephew of someone on the police force, and supposedly the murders were covered up to save the reputation of the uncle. If I remember correctly however, the policeman uncle actually ended up committing suicide in the end, and there was a lot of speculation that it was due to the "burden of the knowledge" of what his nephew had done. Or who knows, in light of your discoveries, maybe Uncle Cutbush was the Ripper himself.

I highly recommend reading AP's stuff though, it is very interesting and very convincing as well.

I always liked AP and miss his postings...does anyone know how he is doing?

[Pierre]

Pierre,
I was misremembering AP's theory. Thomas Cutbush was a nephew of someone on the police force, and supposedly the murders were covered up to save the reputation of the uncle. If I remember correctly however, the policeman uncle actually ended up committing suicide in the end, and there was a lot of speculation that it was due to the "burden of the knowledge" of what his nephew had done. Or who knows, in light of your discoveries, maybe Uncle Cutbush was the Ripper himself.

I highly recommend reading AP's stuff though, it is very interesting and very convincing as well.

I always liked AP and miss his postings...does anyone know how he is doing?

No problem Brenda. I will check out this book. Thanks!

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre,
I was misremembering AP's theory. Thomas Cutbush was a nephew of someone on the police force, and supposedly the murders were covered up to save the reputation of the uncle. If I remember correctly however, the policeman uncle actually ended up committing suicide in the end, and there was a lot of speculation that it was due to the "burden of the knowledge" of what his nephew had done. Or who knows, in light of your discoveries, maybe Uncle Cutbush was the Ripper himself.

I highly recommend reading AP's stuff though, it is very interesting and very convincing as well.

I always liked AP and miss his postings...does anyone know how he is doing?

Found this: Jack the Myth
A.P. Wolf
Robert Hale, 1993. Illus, index.

Casebook Review:

A difficult book to find. Wolf suggests the Stride was killed by her lover, Michael Kidney, and that the remaining victims were done in by Thomas Cutbush. Very little evidence is provided to back up either assertion. Recommended only for collectors.

Regards Pierre

[Mayerling]

Hi Pierre,

The reason I suggested "V" meant "Victoria" was slightly facetious, but possibly understandable due to a bit of my own "hobble - dee horse" (and this does not make my interest in this case a hobby, please think of that).

If you are not aware of it, in December 1887 the magazine "Beeton's Christmas Annual" published a story that made literary history. It was "A Study in Scarlet" by Arthur Conan Doyle, and it introduced Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson. I've been a lifelong Doyle fan, and so I have sometimes overdone my fascination of the Holmes stories. Still I feel they mirror the late Victorian and early Edwardian periods, and may have details buried in them that show Conan Doyle's lifetime interest in crime and detection. Conan Doyle was one of the founders of the "Our Society" a.k.a. the "Crime Club" in London which meets several times a year and discusses old cases. He also was friendly to some of the Scotland Yard detectives, like his predecessor Charles Dickens had been in the 1840s and 1850s.

Also, in line with the chronology I prepared of cases showing the Yard bungling investigations or having committed crimes before the Whitechapel Murders, Conan Doyle's novella of 1887 demonstrated Holmes' superiority as an investigator to Scotland Yard's abilities demonstrated by the two inspectors from the Yard who are considered the best of the lot - Lestrade and Gregson. Conan Doyle did not actually dismiss the abilities of the police, but he certainly found some of their actions questionable.

"A Study in Scarlet" was the first of a series of Holmes novellas/novels and short stories. In the end there were sixty of these. In one of them, in describing the rooms Holmes and he shared at 221 B Baker Street, Watson mentions how Holmes once took a gun and shot a "V" into the wall of their sitting room in a spirit of patriotism (i.e., for Queen Victoria). Hence my suggestion about the "V" cuts.

By the way, years ago a member of this website, "Whypers", also discussed the cuts and mutilations as symbols by the killer - but he thought they showed a similarity to somebody who used similar designed shapes when doing tailoring.

I am glad that you found my chronology of interest.


Jeff